wjackcooper
Active Member
- Feb 9, 2011
- 689
The problem is not the intermediate scrutiny standard itself. The problem is how the plaintiffs argue the case. The government usually uses correlations that are not backed up by causation. Instead of arguing that the government is using speculative evidence, which is allowed under rational basis, the plaintiffs dispute the evidence with other evidence. This causes the court to perceive the problem as a policy dispute between two valid issues. SCOTUS has already acknowledged that the legislature is entitled to deference in these issues and defers to the legislature's choices in these cases. This ensures defeat because the law is against us.
No deference should be afforded the legislature because these cases are not policy issues, they are constitutional ones.
If there is relevant, authoritative, or credible support for your assertions, links and quotes would be appreciated.
Regards
Jack